Welcome to
Protect Our Rural Lifestyle
.com
Our Mission: To stop the formation of another
layer of government in Warm Springs

Right up front:

We, a group of concerned Palomino Valley neighbors, oppose the Warm Springs Valley Unincorporated Town Ballot Initiative. (The UT.)  We looked deeper into the arguments advanced by the proponents of ballot question WC-1, and found that far too much misinformation has been cast about. We are neither concerned with, nor convinced by, conjecture, hopes, and wishful thinking on this matter. Rather, we are concerned with facts. We also have serious concerns about what unintended, potentially irreversible consequences of adding another layer of governance to our lives might be. This is serious business, friends and neighbors, so sharpen up, pay attention, keep an open mind, and filter what you are told through suspicious ears and eyes.

 

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel."

-- Patrick Henry

 CLICK HERE FOR INFORMATION UPDATES
 

Did you know?
(click on each topic to learn more)

 

Vote NO on WC-1 and WC-2

A UT will be another layer of government and you will pay higher taxes!

An unincorporated town board has taxing authority and can create town codes and ordinances.  That is the very definition of an additional layer of government.  

The proponents say the UT will not be another layer of government; that they will simply be an “adjunct of county government.”  Adjunct: noun: addition, attachment, add-on, appendage, accessory, extra, appurtenance, ..."  In other words, another layer -  just what the proponents have claimed it is not.  The use of euphemisms is a traditional tactic used to soften an unpleasant reality. They are clever at best and deceptive at worst. 

Furthermore, the proponents seem to contradict themselves when they stated, “… as an established government entity, the unincorporated town …”  Yes, you read that right.  The UT will be a “government entity” which equates to an additional layer of government. It is not a passive, benign "side kick."

Taxpayer Alert! 

The proponents of a UT state the following in their argument for passage:

The unincorporated town would assume the approximate annual $240.00 cost of the contracted street light at the corner of Whiskey Springs and Pyramid Highway, to be funded by an estimated tax levy of .00011 per $100.00 assessed valuation of real property.  Funds collected beyond the cost of the light will remain in the town account with the county to be used for future beneficial town projects.”

What the proponents want the taxpayers to believe is that the only cost to run this unincorporated town will be the cost of the electric bill for one street light. Do you, the taxpayers, really believe that? 

We’ll explore the additional costs to run a town in a minute. Our legitimate concern here is that the tax rate of 0.00011 [per $100 of assessed value] stated on the proponents petition 1 (as amended) and on the ballot question, is woefully inadequate. Look closely at the ballot question, which states: 

An affirmative vote of this question carries with it the assent to be taxed for the service indicated by virtue of a special property tax assessment not to exceed 1.5% of the assessed property value, the establishment of a user fee schedule or a combination of both.” 

Per NRS 269.115, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) will have the power to levy a tax rate of 1.5% per year (maximum).  We believe the BCC will recognize that the tax rate of .00011 will not raise the funds necessary to operate the town, and will, in turn, impose a much higher rate; possibly the maximum of 1.5%.  Let's do some quick arithmetic: 1.5% is 13,636 times higher than .000111.  You read that right.

Are these under-estimates being stated out of ignorance or deception?

***************************************************************************

Costs to Operate a Town to be Paid for by the Taxpayers of the Town

Lots of information here and lots of unanswered questions about the true costs to operate an unincorporated town (UT).  One of the main proponents recently stated in a post on Nextdoor, "Please do your own 'due diligence' and learn the pros and cons of unincorporated towns before you decide how to vote."

Due diligence?  Really?  We who are opposed to this unnecessary, unwanted, additional layer of government have spent countless hours in research.  The proponents did not do their due diligence and did not meet with the County to get answers to the many questions regarding costs to run a UT.  Instead, they put forth a petition and an argument statement touting a ridiculous $240 a year in costs and an “estimated” .00011 tax rate (per $100 assessed value).

We believe the costs will be much higher.  The taxpayers should know exactly what the special tax levy will be or what the user fee schedule will be or what the combination of both will be BEFORE voting on this ballot question.  But we’re not going to have that information, because the proponents have been relying on a “latrine lawyer” (their euphemism is “consultant”) who has convinced them he had/has all the answers; no professional, legal advice needed.

 We have posed to the County the following questions regarding costs:

1. Will the district attorney’s office provide legal services, including having a
    deputy district attorney attend the monthly TAB meetings, without charge?

2. Will the County clerk's office publish the agendas, post the agendas, provide a recording secretary for the monthly meetings, and write the minutes, without charge?

3. Will the IT department set up and maintain a website or webpage for the TAB, without charge?

4. Will the comptroller's office provide bookkeeping and budgeting services for the TAB, without charge?

5. Will the treasurer's office provide tax or user fee collection services, without charge?

6. Will the County provide bond counsel to handle any issuance of securities, without charge?

7. Will a county department provide record retention services in compliance with NRS, without charge?

8. Will a county department be responsible to have any notices published, such as required by NRS 269.155 (2)(b), without charge?

9. Will the county provide a justice of the peace to render judgment on violations of ordinances (NRS 269.165), without charge?

We have received an answer on question number 2, and that answer is “NO,” the County clerk’s office will not provide services to the UT, not even for a fee.  Per NRS 269.019 (1), “A deputy town clerk may be appointed by the town board, which shall fix his or her salary.”

Most towns have employees such as a Town Manager and a Deputy Town Clerk/Office Assistant.  Salaries and benefits (including Nevada Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) will be costly, and, you, the taxpayers will be taxed accordingly.

The proponents have contradicted each other on these questionable costs, with some (including their “consultant”) saying the County is to provide all these services, without charge, and another saying, “Just like the CAB had a secretary the TAB can have a treasurer, a clerk and an attorney.  I am sure the TAB can figure out a budget for an attorney since we will have a nice little sum of money from the maintenance of the Streetlight at Whiskey Springs and Pyramid.”

***************************************************************************

More Costs - Town Offices

 "The town board ... shall hold a regular meeting in the town offices or in the courthouse at the county seat at least once in each month, ..." (NRS 269.025). 

Currently, there is no town office, so would the monthly meetings have to be held at the Washoe County courthouse? If so, are you willing to travel there?

There is currently no provision in the NRS statutes wherein the Town Advisory Board (TAB) can use either the Palomino Valley Volunteer Firehouse or the Washoe County Regional Shooting Range classroom/meeting room (controlled by the Washoe County Parks Department) as their designated and permanent "town office."

In 2020, what constitutes a typical town government office? At the very least, we would expect to see: 

  • A board/meeting room large enough to accommodate the five-member board and the anticipated crowd of residents that the UT proponents expect will show up to these meetings. Bear in mind that a TAB, just like the CAB, GID, or BCC, is subject to open meeting laws.
     

  • Desks, tables, chairs, file cabinets, and computers
     

  • Current fire code compliant electrical and building design, with stricter codes implemented nearly every year.
     

  • Building security system. Sensitive materials, e.g. town residents' names, addresses, and tax records (yes, the town can tax you) must be kept secure. No money in the budget for secure storage? Would you allow a board member to take home your personal information and keep it in his or her residence for "safe keeping?" This practice was common in rural communities (even ours) in the past. Due to the lack of a central record depository, files were kept at home by board members and trustees. Yikes!

    This is not Mayberry RFD, and we don't accept such practices today. Secure information storage is mandatory. Who will provide it, and at what cost?
     

  • Reliable internet connectivity - provided by whom and at what cost?
     

  • Phone service for a dedicated land line and/or cellular phone for the town office. Again, provided by whom and at what expense? No carrier offers free service, to our knowledge. If you know of free phone service in Northern Nevada, let us know immediately.
     

  • Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant bathrooms, ADA compliant access ramps and ADA parking spaces. Do not under-estimate the cost of these mandatory features.
     

  • Landscaping. Yes! Perpetually-maintained, county-prescribed landscaping and premises maintenance for all public buildings is mandatory. Even in rural areas such as ours? Yes! Read the Washoe County code 110.412.

Where will the money and the land come from to build this town office? NRS 269.130 and NRS 269.135 allow for condemnation of property for town's use. The TAB can request that the BCC "condemns" a property within the Town's boundaries for the purpose of building a town office.  Will that be your property they condemn and "take" for that purpose?

With what we just laid out, how much do you suppose a new, fully-ADA-compliant office building will cost?  And who will be called upon to pay for it? That would be you, the taxpayers.  Do you think that .00011 tax rate that the proponents of WC-1 have stated would be enough? Think again.

 So far, we have seen preposterous, even laughable under-estimates of the costs to form an unincorporated town. Is this a "bait and switch" tactic to get your vote?

***************************************************************************

More Costs - Additional Street Lights

The UT must provide at least one service for the town.  The proponents have told us that they will "take over "the one street light at the intersection of  Whiskey Springs Road and Pyramid Highway, by the NDOT storage yard.  That light is currently owned by Washoe County.  Will the County relinquish ownership of it?

Let’s assume they do take it over.  We can fully expect, then, that residents might ask - no, demand - that a new street light be installed for their safety at these other poorly-lit intersections: 

  • Pyramid Highway and Axe Handle Road

  • Pyramid Highway and Winnemucca Ranch Road

  • Pyramid Highway and Ironwood Road

  • Pyramid Highway and Range Land Road

  • Dozens of other intersections throughout the Valley

So, when all these demands for additional street lights come in, is the TAB going to deny these requests?  Doubtful, as this is the very service they were set up to provide for the town.  Therefore, be prepared to pay even more in taxes and/or fees to pay for these brand new street light installations (remember, there’s only one street light out here now).

 The little township idea is getting expensive, isn't it?

***************************************************************************

More Costs - Some Nasty Surprises

A Dog Tax (yes, really):

Once an area becomes an unincorporated town, the BCC can impose an annual fee on your dogs.  If the fee is not paid, the county can exterminate your dogs. Do you think we are joking? We are not. Here is this horrible statute:

NRS 269.225 Dogs: Tax; extermination when tax not paid. The boards of county commissioners may levy and collect an annual tax on all dogs owned or kept within the limits of any unincorporated town in their respective counties, and provide for the extermination of all dogs for which the tax has not been paid.

 If all we knew about a UT was this alone, that would be
enough to earn our strong opposition to it. What say you?

***************************************************************************

Business License Taxes:

General and home-based businesses are currently paying a business license tax to Washoe County.  Per NRS 269.170 (1)(a), once an unincorporated town is established, the town board can “Fix and collect a license tax on and regulate [emphasis added]…” a lengthy list of businesses, including, “(6) Corrals, hay yards, livery and sale stables and wagon yards.”

Furthermore, NRS 269.170 (1)(b) states, “(b) Fix and collect a license tax upon all professions, trades or business within the town not specified in paragraph (a).”

You business owners might ask, “I already pay a business license tax to the County, so what difference does this make?”  The difference this may make is that the TAB may impose higher, even dramatically higher. taxes on Valley businesses, and there are a lot of us who have home-based businesses here in Palomino Valley/Warm Springs.

Oh, ye home and small business owners - prepare to pay dearly

***************************************************************************

Costs and Taxing Authority - Final Thoughts

In order to support their new layer of government, the TAB would use their taxing authority to impose additional property taxes, possibly implement new taxes (e.g. “Dog Tax”), and likely increase existing taxes (e.g. business license taxes).  All of these taxes would be added on top of the taxes we already pay.  

Oh, don’t forget that the TAB can also establish a user fee schedule or a combination of both taxes and user fees. By virtue of owning property within the town boundaries, all of us are “users,” and all of us taxpayers will have to pay the costs to operate a town and for the street lights service, whether we benefit from it or not. 

Is this hyperbole?  NO!  Government agencies have a perpetually voracious appetite for your money.  Witness that needy "black hole" known as the Washoe County School District.  It is never enough.  They always demand more.

 Based on this alone, we are opposed to the formation of the UT.

Back to Index

Vote NO on WC-1 and WC-2

You will be controlled and regulated by a five-member board

Vote NO on WC-1 and WC-2 unless you are willing to trust your future to five strangers. Do you know who these people are? Their backgrounds? Their ideologies? You may be very surprised. One of the main proponents, who will very likely be an appointee to the first five-member UT board, is a strong supporter of the sovereign citizen movement. Are you concerned yet?

Interestingly, on 9/14/2020 another lead proponent of the UT wrote on NextDoor:

"A word of caution: "Don't let your dislike for anyone involved in attempting to create an unincorporated town influence your vote."

Was this proponent, in effect, saying, "nothing to see here, folks, move on?" 

Wake up, wise up, and vote NO to this intrusion upon your rural lifestyle.

***************************************************************************

The surprising powers of a Town Board:

Code Changes:  It would be within the town board's authority to enact stricter codes than what the county now has. They cannot, however, create looser codes than the county on any matter. Many years ago, when Palomino Valley was under development, the CC&Rs prohibited more than two (2) inoperable vehicles on a property. Using that old template of rules, it is entirely possible that a TAB could legally impose town codes as strict or stricter than those old CC&Rs. Many would be thrilled to see that happen. Would you?

Oh, but the current UT proponents, who may comprise the five-member board, would not do such things, you say? Are you 100% sure? What about their replacements in a few short years? There are term limits. Do you want to have to explain to your children and grandchildren that you voted for this extra layer of government that resulted in more control over your and their lives?  

We don’t want the equivalent of a Homeowners Association (HOA) on steroids!

***************************************************************************

In their argument supporting passage of the ballot issue, the proponents wrote: 

"the town advisory board through monthly meetings will fulfill the residents interests, provide them the opportunity to engage in the participatory representative government of their community, ensuring and preserving their constitutional rights."

What a lovely example of "bureaucratese," defined as wordy, ostentatious talk or writing that resembles bureaucratic writing. Yeek.

Let's get this straight. The proponents are putting forth the notion that this proposed new, additional layer of government, run by a cabal of five strangers, will somehow ensure our constitutional rights. This is a real whopper, and we don't mean the kind that you order from that fast food joint.

Were we not taught in grade school that our enumerated rights, as defined in the U.S. Constitution, are the highest laws of the land?  Would this proposed rural oligarchy --and that is indeed what it would be - take on the role as our defenders and protectors? Thanks for your kind offer, but we'll pass on that. 

So, a TAB will "fulfill" our interests, you say? How so? We fulfill our own interests daily by working hard, playing hard, minding our own business, protecting our homes and families, and rejecting anything - including this nonsensical township - that seeks to control our lives!

Even a cursory demographic study of our area would reveal common threads among the residents: we have fierce spirit of independence and strong sense of individuality. If we wanted city planners dictating rules to us, we'd live in an urban area. Most of us wish to be left alone and in peace.

Perhaps a new political party should be formed, named the "LUTHA" party -
the Leave Us The Hell Alone" party. We are sure it would be a hit.

Food for thought: Many, if not most, of the proponents moved from CA to NV. Most left that state because of the overbearing, intrusive government and the steadily-progressing decay of populated areas. The irony is that many have been programmed to think that creating another layer of government, in this case a town board, would be a grand idea - if only they would be in charge of it. Yeah, that's the ticket- we'll be in charge.

The Golden State wasn't always a mess. It started its downward spiral when it created layer upon layer of outrageously expensive government entities over the decades. California now has 231 (and counting) state agencies, commissions, departments, boards, offices, and bureaus. And they are in severe debt.

Why not look at that troubled, dysfunctional state, learn from their mistakes, and move forward with more wisdom than they have demonstrated?   

"We've been conditioned to think that only politicians can solve our problems. But at some point, maybe we will wake up and recognize that it was politicians who created our problems." - Ben Carson

We Say NO to any new boards or government entities. What say you?

Back to Index 

Vote NO on WC-1 and WC-2

Annexation by Reno or Sparks is a preposterous scare tactic

The annexation monster under the bed

The proponents of the Unincorporated Town (UT) of Warm Springs Valley have been using a scare tactic by saying that one reason to have a UT is to keep Reno or Sparks from annexing Warm Springs.  

The “consultant” assisting the Warm Springs Valley UT proponents, who spearheaded the failed attempt to have Cold Springs become a UT, is also using the threat of annexation to scare people into believing they must vote in favor of the UT or they won’t be able to stop Reno or Sparks from annexing their property.

In a post on Nextdoor, a main proponent of the Warm Springs Valley UT cited a statute (NRS 268.580 (2)(d)) that to him, “single handedly [was] sufficient reason for us to insist on becoming an UT.” 

This main proponent had to back-track and make a correction when it was pointed out to him that he had cited a statute that did not apply to us in Warm Springs or any other “counties with populations less than 700,000.” 

He then stated that “A UT still gives us protection against annexation we do not otherwise have.”

Oh really?  Wrong again, Mr. Main Proponent! 

The annexation statutes that do apply to us (counties with populations less than 700,000), allow the property owners to protest annexation.  If a majority (in number or assessed value) of property owners protest the annexation, the annexation must be denied!*
 

We, the people, currently have protection against annexation.
We do not need an unincorporated town to protect us
from the “annexation monster under the bed.”


WE HAVE THAT POWER NOW!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* The relevant annexation statutes for Palomino Valley/Warm Springs are:

        NRS 268.610 Applicability.

       1. The provisions of NRS 268.610 to 268.671, inclusive, apply only to cities
           located in a county whose population is less than 700,000.

-- and --

        NRS 268.660 Denial of annexation; annexation over protest; exclusion of
        lands owned by public body.

       1.Except as provided in subsection 2, the annexation must be denied if
          protests are made, either in writing as provided in NRS 268.656 or at the
          public hearing, by:

         (a) A majority in number of the real property owners of the territory
               proposed to be annexed; or

         (b) The owners of real property whose combined value is greater than 50
               percent of the total value of real property in the territory proposed to
               be annexed, as determined by assessment for taxation.

 

***************************************************************************

Why annexation isn’t a threat to us

As stated above, we have the power to stop annexation right now, without forming an expensive, unincorporated town (UT).

Contrary to the claims made by several of the UT proponents, neither Reno nor Sparks has expressed any interest in annexing Warm Springs.  Can any of those proponents provide minutes from any meeting of either city in which annexation of our area was discussed as an agenda item?  We would be genuinely interested in reading those minutes.

Part of our mission statement here at Protect Our Rural Lifestyle reads:  "We are neither concerned with, nor convinced by, conjecture, hopes, and wishful thinking on this matter.  Rather, we are concerned with facts."

Why would Reno or Sparks not wish to annex us?

Here are a few, key reasons:

a)     Cities annex to increase revenue.  Warm Springs would most certainly not be an asset.  Rather, we would be an expensive liability.  As an older, rural community, with very low density, large parcels, and dirt roads, we have nothing they want.  We do not offer the tax base a city typically would be looking for in an annexation initiative.

b)     A city would have to provide proper infrastructure and provide city services, e.g. flood control, paved roads, street lights, sewage treatment, police, and much more.  The infrastructure costs alone would be astronomical.

Spring Mountain has been mentioned as a harbinger of things to come.  The Spring Mountain Planned Unit Development (PUD) investors requested to be added to the City of Reno's Sphere of Influence (SOI) (which is not the same as being annexed - it is, however, the first step in the process).  The city agreed. Based on this event, UT proponents have created the argument that Reno wants to annex most or all of Warm Springs.  That is not only a stretch - it is a misleading scare tactic.

Note:  On May 27, 2020, the Reno City Council voted unanimously not to annex the Evans Creek/Ballardini Ranch property.  This property consisted of four parcels totaling 1,019 acres, which was already in Reno’s Sphere of Influence (SOI).  Read this article by Steve Wolgast with “Washoe Residents for Appropriate Planning” and learn why.

The annexation plans for the cities of Reno and Sparks must comply with the Truckee Meadows Regional Plan.  That Regional Plan was just updated in 2019 [Linked here].  The new TMR Plan rolled back Sparks’ sphere of influence and established a “Regional Form” that lessens sprawl and supports development within the “Region’s core.”  Palomino/Warm Springs Valley is not within the “Region’s core,” not even close!

 

Annexation has become the imaginary monster under the bed.

Let us put this non-issue to rest, shall we?

 Back to Index

Vote NO on WC-1 and WC-2

Citizens Advisory Board (CAB) vs. Town Advisory Board (TAB)

We think that most would agree that our Warm Springs Citizens Advisory Board (CAB) can be improved upon. Contrary to the UT proponents' claim that the Warm Spring CAB is ineffective, you should know that our CAB in past years has enjoyed remarkable success in stopping spot zoning efforts, as well as other undesirable and incompatible threats to our valley and our rural lifestyle.

Further, the UT proponents allege that we, the residents, are apathetic, that few show up for the CAB meetings, and, therefore, our voices are not heard with any weight at the County BCC. A new Town Advisory Board (TAB) will change all that, they say. Are they seriously suggesting that residents who were heretofore unmotivated to participate in a quarterly CAB meeting will now be eager to show up to monthly TAB meetings? We just do not see that happening.

Is the lack of participation strictly a result of apathy? Could there be other factors? Could it be because:

a) Many retired from workplaces that had mandatory weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly meetings, whether it was truly necessary or not. The term "meeting" in many peoples' minds became synonymous with "root canal." They moved out to rural Palomino Valley to seek a quieter lifestyle, far removed from office drama and politics, and the dreaded meeting room.

Tattoos should make you more employable because it shows that you can sit in place for hours, while needles are jammed into your skin - much like every corporate meeting I have attended has felt like.

Unless there is something extraordinarily pressing that poses a threat to us, most of us would prefer to keep to ourselves and family, and tend to our own business.  Can you really fault us for that? 

b) Predictably, at nearly every CAB meeting, there are a number of vociferous,  disruptive people who shatter the meeting decorum and intimidate the attendees. The atmosphere becomes nearly unbearable. Civil discussions have become such a challenge that people stopped attending altogether. Not the disruptive ones, though. They are always there, for they thrive on conflict. Tell us how a TAB meeting would differ, with those same disruptive people present. Who needs all that drama and confrontation?

The Warm Springs CAB handbook offers advice and solutions for dealing with disruptive people, one of which is to simply shut down the meeting, clear the room, lock the doors, and set a new date for the meeting. Also, at numerous meetings in the past, a Deputy Sheriff had been called in to maintain order.

Certain hot button issues and agenda items stir up the Pal Val hornets nest occasionally. Residents will show up when a serious issue affecting them is on the agenda, so long as they are made aware of it. With advent of the NextDoor online forum, information is now sent out faster and broader. Extra bonus: Its content is not controlled by Mark Zuckerberg.     

c) The CAB meetings are held at the insistence of our Commissioner in a small, uncomfortable room in the Palomino Valley volunteer firehouse, which has won the "region's worst acoustically designed meeting room award" for the past 35 years. Seriously, it is so bad that when several people speak at once (and they do) one can barely hear another standing two feet away. It was built as a training room for the volunteer firefighters, but was pressed into service as a public meeting room, since no other facilities existed then for that purpose.

When the number of attendees exceeds the small room capacity, the meeting must be moved out to the garage area, where the fire trucks are stored. Only select people (trained and certified) are allowed to move those expensive trucks.  After the trucks have been moved out, the lovely smell of diesel fumes remains. Oh, and don't wear your good shoes to a meeting in the garage, for puddles of oil and other "liquid landmines" on the concrete floor will await you.

Is there a better meeting room available to us? Yes! A much larger, more comfortable, and better acoustically-designed meeting room is located a mere four (4) miles north, at the Washoe County Regional Shooting Range. With more parking spaces and more bathrooms! Could the CAB meetings be held there? Yes, but one person - one - expressed displeasure with that alternative location. Sadly, our current county Commissioner acquiesced and required that all CAB meetings take place in that small fire station room. Go figure.

This unpleasantness shall pass, but in the meantime we must suffer.
Why? Contact Commissioner Jeanne Herman for an answer.

By the way....

Community Forums are a great way to interact with your Commissioner

Our former Commissioner, Bonnie Weber, held several informal "Community Forums" in the Shooting Range's meeting room. There, attendees were able to speak directly to the Commissioner and to others in the room on any topic of concern. You cannot do that in a CAB, a TAB, or a BCC.  As there was no formal agenda, no strict parliamentary procedure, and no two-minute limit on public comments, it was far more effective, because of a freer exchange of ideas than ever could occur in a CAB or a TAB.   

Is there any reason why we cannot have a Community Forum now and speak directly to our Commissioner? Why go through all the expense and trouble of setting up an unincorporated town, when the whole purpose, as the proponents claim, is to have more clout or influence with our Commissioner on matters of local importance?

Would you not rather speak directly - in person - to your commissioner?

Back to Index

Vote NO on WC-1 and WC-2

A Post Office, Fire Station, and Urgent Care Facility will not happen

The following fanciful enticements have been offered up by the UT proponents in order to buy your votes:

¤ A Post Office for Warm Springs: Simply put, it's not going to happen.

Please read this letter from the US Postal Service, Nevada-Sierra District office, addressed to one of our committee members, in response to her inquiry about the possibility of having a post office or postal annex built in Warm Springs.

¤ A career fire station. Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope....   

There are so many things wrong and misleading with his notion that we have added another page to this website to address it. See what Fire Chief Charles Moore has to say about the real costs here. Prepare to be shocked.

¤ An Urgent Care Facility: Nice dream, but wishful thinking.

Renown is one of the primary medical providers in the Reno area, and has five (5) urgent care facilities. They will not be building one in our rural area, even with the magical grant that the proponents toss about. State-of-the-art medical facilities are second only to nuclear power plants in terms of their costs to build. Feel free to contact Renown here. Their board of directors can be found here. Be sure to post on NextDoor their response to your inquiry about if or when they might be building a new Urgent Care facility here in Warm Springs.

All of this is straight out of P.T. Barnum's playbook. Don't be a sucker! 

Back to Index

Vote NO on WC-1 and WC-1

A TAB will have no control over wild horse roundups

A UT will have no control over any future wild horse roundups. Authorization for those periodic roundups - like them or not - is per an agreement between the Nevada Department of Agriculture and the Paiute Tribe, a sovereign nation located within the Pyramid Lake Indian Reservation.

This information was provided by Ian Knight, Agricultural Enforcement Officer with the Nevada Department of Agriculture.  Mr. Knight cited NRS Chapter 569, Estrays and Livestock [https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-569.html].

Other than making some noise about it, the UT can exercise
no authority in this long-established practice.

Back to Index

Vote NO on WC-1 and WC-2

The TAB will have no jurisdiction over road maintenance in Palomino Valley

Commentary on NextDoor from at least two people has created the notion that the TAB will somehow have power and control over our GID, resulting in "better" roads.

This idea is absolutely, 100% false! The GID is, and will remain, a separate entity with its own elected board of trustees and will not be accountable or subservient to a TAB.

Here is yet another item you can remove from your wish list 

Back to Index

Vote NO on WC-1 and WC-2

In the timeline of troubles that have plagued our Valley,
 the UT is now the latest


Public Domain Image

Troubles come in many forms. Several times over the years, residents of Warm Springs have come to together to fight undesirable entities and proposals:

  • In the late 1990's one enterprising individual set up a human waste sludge operation off of Bacon Rind Road. It was shut down after much protest. The smell lingered for years, according to some who remember it well.
     

  • In 2003, a couple from Sparks sought funding and permitting to buy a parcel of land in the Wilcox Ranch area in order to build a juvenile detention facility that they euphemistically named the Teen Ranch. It would be far from the arms of the law, with no walls, fences, or other means of containment for the little angels. It was a reckless and dangerous idea that truly terrified residents. It was met with overwhelming resistance in many CAB meetings, and it was not approved.
     

  • Out of town, commercial cattle operators have been dumping their cattle and allowing them to graze on our private lands. This was, and still is, an ongoing issue with no clear resolution. In a nutshell, they (the commercial cattle company owners) falsely claimed that Warm Springs is "open range," and, therefore, they have a right to graze their herds wherever they like. No such "right" exists - only specific Bureau of Land Management (BLM) allotments for cattle grazing.

    Residents countered with the righteous argument that no one has the right to use another's property without permission. Private property ownership is one of the fundamental essentials of a free society; no one can demand that you relinquish it for their use without compensation. It was both frustrating and maddening to see our own commissioner back then work against us on this issue. The conflict is still at an impasse, but we have seen fewer large herds now than in the past. 
     

  • The Commercial Wind Farm (2010) was a slick and shady proposal to install up to sixty-six (66) 450-foot tall commercial wind generators along the ridgeline by Virginia Peak, and then erect huge towers carrying transmission lines through private property easements, ultimately connecting to the Tracy Power plant.  

    It was a terrible idea, and eventually it was not allowed to proceed. We wish we could say that it was stopped because of our strong, well-prepared counter-arguments, but in truth it was stopped due to environmental concerns, specifically that a significant number of protected golden eagles on that peak would almost assuredly be shredded by the fast moving blades.

  • The Uninformed Township Initiative (today) is another terrible idea, which would add another unnecessary layer of government at great expense, and accomplish little beyond that which can be accomplished now through better citizen participation. Yes, we agree that citizen involvement is important and can be better. 

    Further, it is currently causing serious friction and division within our otherwise peaceful valley, and pitting neighbor against neighbor. While there are a few militant anarchists who perpetually seek confrontation, it can be safely stated that the rest of us moved out here for the opposite reason - to be left alone and in peace.


What future, undesirable ideas and entities will we have to battle in the future? 
 Why does Warm Springs seem to be magnet for these things every few years? 
Sadly and ironically, living in peace requires a fight. It has become tiresome
.

Back to Index
 

Vote NO on WC-1 and WC-2

Other places in Nevada have UTs, so therefore, we should too, right?

One proponent has stated that there are 44 UTs in the state of Nevada. So what? Who cares? Do our UT proponents feel “left out?” Is there a Nevada Unincorporated Town Club that they yearn to become part of? Does the club hold annual picnics and lavish awards ceremonies? Gosh, who wouldn’t want to be a part of that cool group? Will we, the commoners, be invited? 

In all seriousness, why do the proponents point to what others are doing? Are their arguments for WC-1 and WC-2 so weak that they feel compelled to point out what other areas have done, in order to sell us on this unsound idea? Why should we care what others have done? We are not them, and they are not us. We are a unique area, and we rather enjoy that status. Others had their reasons to form a UT, none of which apply to us in any meaningful way. 

With 44 UTs to choose from, surely the proponents could find one they like and move there. They might be happier. Clearly, they are not happy with things as they are here, else they would not be trying to pound square pegs in round holes, i.e. trying to transform Palomino Valley into something it is not and should not be. We must work together to protect our rural lifestyle by vigilance, not by radical, disruptive change and the addition of more government.    

Many of Nevada’s unincorporated towns were formed because the communities were located in a remote, rural county and they received support from local industries, such as mining, the Nevada test site, dairies, or ranches. Our valley is 20 miles from Reno/Sparks and we have no major industry to support us. The financial burden of operating a UT (and it will be heavy) will fall upon all of us. In the case of WC-1, it will be split among approximately 1,000 property owners. In the case of WC-2, it will be closer to fifty (50) property owners. 

Some of us have kept up with the various posts on NextDoor and have attended meetings held at the equestrian center before the signature gathering started. Here is an audio recording of the third meeting in which Washoe county representative Dave Solaro answered some of our questions with facts. One of the more vociferous UT proponents dismissed what Solaro said as "lies." Typical. Truth can sometimes be painful to hear.

Also, the so-called "expert consultant" from outside our area, treated us to a verbal list of his unsubstantiated opinions and empty promises.

A Palomino Valley resident shared with us valuable knowledge about UTs. She has spoken with folks from Genoa and Amargosa Valley, both of which are UTs. She also lived in two Nevada unincorporated towns in the 1980’s. Palomino Valley, however, is unlike those places and she believes that an unincorporated town is wholly inappropriate for our area. We agree. 

Back to Index

Vote NO on WC-1 and WC-2

Our firm conclusion is that the UT proposal is not needed, and it will have potentially irreversible, negative, unintended consequences to the residents of Warm Springs for years to come. Please vote NO on WC-1 and WC-2.

Beware of any person or political entity who never uses the words liberty, freedom, or taxpayer. Why? Because those things are unimportant to them.
- Anonymous author

 

 email: protectoururalifestyle@yahoo.com

 

 

Back to Top